California Supreme Court considering pivotal issue in gay marriage legal fight today

The California Supreme Court will meet behind closed doors Wednesday to deal with a pressing question in the legal battle over gay marriage in California.

The justices will review a request by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to determine whether Proposition 8's sponsors have the legal standing to defend the ballot measure that reinstated a ban on same-sex marriage.

A federal judge in San Francisco struck down Proposition 8 in August, ruling after a 12-day trial that the 2008 ballot measure violated equal-protection guarantees under the U.S. Constitution. Experts testified during the trial that one's sexual orientation was largely fixed and that matrimony benefits the families of gays and lesbians.

State officials refused to appeal the ruling. Now the 9th Circuit must determine whether Proposition 8's sponsors, ProtectMarriage.com, have legal standing to challenge the trial court's decision.

Depending on the state high court's ruling, the 9th Circuit could either dismiss the appeal on procedural grounds -- limiting the case's effect to California -- or rule on federal constitutional questions that would affect same-sex marriage throughout the country.

ALSO:

Dozens arrested in operation targeting Armenian organized crime

Budget cuts or higher parking-lot fees? Tough decisions ahead at L.A. City Hall

Vernon mayor admits a few 'bad apples' but offers spirited defense of embattled city

-- Maura Dolan

Photo: Both sides battle during the 2008 Proposition 8 campaign. Credit: Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Sun Lee]

Unreligious; it's so sad that you fail to understand the meanings of these words you write. If you only decide to interpret what you want to understand rather than what the word means, then you are blind to your own understanding. You can say the word bad and mean it's a good thing. You can say that is the $hit and mean it's a good thing. There are so many times people or society mis-use the word and we decide to accept it as it is because we allow such behavior to exist. That's why we now have to say words like "alleged". Vague words like this only confuses the people and leads them to believe that it would mean something else. Damn the ambiguity. Marriage was a word that the church used only meant for a man and woman, so don't think that your words can try to lure to change its meaning.
Furthermore, you won't state your name even on this post because you cannot stand up for what you are even typing, leaving your name anonymous. How pathetic. If you are so willing to post something, grow a backbone and state who you are. Your argument is nulled based on your lack of pride. Also, if you are unreligious, then don't fight or argue against religion. Your stance is for nothing and you shouldn't argue for those who stand up for something.

[Zach]

Sun, what an absurdly lengthy way to say, "shut up and listen to me." Berate him all you like, Unreligious provided facts (so far undisputed) and all you've made clear is that you don't want gays getting married because you can't handle change. That IS what everything you've said so far comes down to - can't handle words with multiple meanings, can't handle the idea of a non-nuclear family, can't handle new information. Apparently people need to lose rights just for your mental peace.

This is the problem with Prop 8 supporters - when you get right down to it, 8 usually remedies none of the problems they're alarmed about, but it makes them FEEL better, like a band-aid.

[Zach]

And by the way, Sun, this is the internet. Unless you're selling something, you don't use your full name. Join us in the 21st century, hmm?

[Trannygirl]

Considering what the DOJ said just this morning about DOMA being undefensible from a constitutional standpoint; then conservatives everywhere will have a hard battle ahead of them to further their agenda of intolerence. All I have to say to them is "TOLD YOU SO". HAHAHAHA